SN & WTC "Short" Springfield Rifles

[Southron Sr.]

Robert M. Reilly says in his "United States Military Small Arms, 1816 - 1865" book states on Page 84 says:

"In addition to the standard Model 1861 and 1863 rifle-muskets , more than your average number of sort or "artillery" models exist bearing Norris & Clement markings. These noted have been 46 & 3/4 inches long overall, with 31 inch barrels which are marked with the initials "L.F.R." No inspector's initials have been noted on the stocks of these arms..."

So, with the additional evidence that short rifles are listed in post-war Ordnance Department sales flyers, then it is pretty safe to say that "YES", "Short" Springfield rifles did exist during the war and are not solely post-war "cut downs" by surplus dealers.

Can anyone else muster additional evidence that "Short" Springfield or Special Model 1861 Rifles were produced during the war?

Let's go ahead and drive a stake thru the heart of the myth that "Short" Springfields didn't exist during the war!

[John Holland]

Just because short SN&WTC muskets "exist", it doesn't mean they were shortened during "The War".

No stake through that heart yet! :roll:

JDH

[John Gross]

There is plenty of evidence that the Confederacy shortened rifle-muskets during the war. However, the available information about it being done at Springfield Armory all points to such modifications being done post-war to keep the workers busy.

John Gross

[Southron Sr.]

Dear John:

Shooter and collectors have this "idealized view" of the gun industry. That everything regarding models and production is carefully planned by the appropriate people in the factory and everything runs along smoothly.

Reality is somewhat different because I have seen the gun industry from the other side. Quite often it is a race to get quality products "out the door" to your wholesalers and dealers. Wartime pressures could only intensify this desire to get as many quality products out the door in the shortest amount of time.

First of all, all the SN & WTC "Short" Rifles have the same markings and lack inspectors cartouches-which would indicate that they were all done together in a batch IN THE FACTORY. As the factory shut down at the end of the war, then the odds are greatly in favor of the fact that they were built during the war.

[John Holland]

Dear Southron, Sr.,

Do you think there is a possibility that the State of Mass. altered their own state owned muskets after the Civil War for their own purposes?

Here's another question in regards to the SN&WTC musket, why are so many of them (both long and short) fractured at the wrist in exactly the same manner? They aren't broken through, just carefully fractured, with of them being stamped with the "IC" marking of "Inspected & Condemned". Your topic concerns only the 31" altered SN&WTC, what do you think about all the other sizes of SN&WTC that show up, for example 30", 32", and 33"?

Thought provoking, but I'm still sure the alterations were done after the Civil War by the State. If I had the time, money, and wherewithal I would go to Mass. and see if I could research the archchives of the State Armory to see what they did from 1865 on.

To expand on what John Gross posted, the Day Books of the Springfield Armory show that they were altering full length muskets to 33" in the early 1870's.

JDH

[jim14th]

Reilly also writes of the Norwich model 61 contract rifle -musket short or "artillery" specimen with 63 type bands. I was contacted by gent living in Norwich Ct. who owned such a model.Who ever put it together followed the" correct " specs but cut the barrel down with a pipe cutter leaving the nice inwards roll to the barrel or perhapes its a rare Confederate attempt at a choke conversion?

[Southron Sr.]

According to R.Q. Sutherland & R.L. Wilson in their classic work: "The Book of Colt Firearms" in regards to the Colt manufactured Special Model of 1861 states on page 206: "A few specimens of the final contract production were fitted with 35 1/4" length barrels and had two barrel bands rather than the customary three..."

Another factor pushing the private contractors to produce a two band rifle is simply a way to use up stocks that came off the carving machines with a fore end that was damaged or out of spec (the for end being the most delicate and easily damaged part of the musket stock.) Springfield Armory, being a government run institution, could afford to scrap these types of defective stocks. Private contractors, on the other hand, had a good economic motive to use these defective stocks in the assembly of two band rifles rather than simply write off those defective stocks and take a loss.

Mr. Sutherland and Mr. Wilson are two of the most respected Civil War firearms experts around. I a willing to take their word about the "Short" Special Model of 1861 rifles.

[John Gross]

Mr. Sutherland and Mr. Wilson are two of the most respected Civil War firearms experts around. I a willing to take their word about the "Short" Special Model of 1861 rifles.

Apparently you are not aware that in 2006-2007 R. L. Wilson spent one year in Federal Prison for fraud involving a firearms transaction. Also, while he was adviser to the Colt Firearms Museum, accusations were brought against him for selling/trading off some of the most priceless Colts for a fraction of their worth (this was detailed in THE GUN REPORT magazine in 1986 or 1987, I have the issue here somewhere).

But anyway, the sources you cite, (Rilley, Wilson/Sutherland) are secondary sources. What we need to see is the primary source of their information, such as Colt shipping records, government contracts, etc. Unfortunately, neither of those books have footnotes to show us where they got their information from. I have both books, and both are excellent references. However, they both contain errors. For an example of a huge error in the Wilson/Sutherland book look at page 161 of the 2nd Edition. Note that the authors say that Civil War Martial Colt Army revolvers have "US" stamped on the frame below "Colt's Patent". This is not true, yet this major error was not corrected in the 2nd Edition.

John Gross

[John Holland]

Thank you, John!

JDH

[Southron Sr.]

I thought we were having an "informal discussion" about two band or " Short" rifles, I never realized that we were supposed to use "Primary Sources" rather than "Secondary Sources." Most formal academic works allow for the use of both types of sources as long as they are properly footnoted.


Gentlemen
I respectfully refer you to Page 309 of Paul Davies magnificent work: "C.S. Armory Richmond" (a Secondary Source) which pictures a portions of a Ordnance Sales Brochure (a Primary Source.)

I refer you to Page 5 from the "Condemned Ordnance and Condemned Ordnance Stores..." that was sold at Springfield Armory on September 20th 1874:

"MUSKETS, RIFLES, CLEANED and REPAIRED,
Colt's
Short, 1st Quality .......20
Short, 2nd Quality.......119
Short, 3rd Quality........20
Altered to Smooth Bore..495..."

Note that the only "altering" done was in making 495 of them smoothbores. Obviously, the Short Rifles, 1st, 2nd and 3rd Quality came from the Colt factory that way OR it would have been noted by the author's of the sales brochure. Keep in mind that this brochure was a legal government document and had to be, accordingly, accurate in all respects.

Sincerely Yours With My Best Wishes
Southron, Sr.

[John Gross]

Obviously, the Short Rifles, 1st, 2nd and 3rd Quality came from the Colt factory that way OR it would have been noted by the author's of the sales brochure.

I guess it's not so "obvious" to me :)

The sales document you refer to is dated September 20, 1870, more than five years after the war ended. Therefore, we do not know exactly when or under what circumstances Springfield Armory acquired them. It could just as easily be argued that they were captured arms which had been altered by the Confederates during the war. While you are correct that they are not specifically noted as being altered to Short Rifles, they are listed as having been cleaned and repaired. Could this "repair" mean that they had damaged barrels/muzzles and thus were shortened to make them usable by Springfield Armory?

All the above are possibilities, and there are probably other scenarios as well of how they came to be Shortened Rifles. So I don't see how one can say that it's "obvious" that they came directly from Colt as Short Rifles.

This is the problem with the "documentation" of these Artillery/Short Rifles for the North. All the documentation is dated post-war.

John Gross

[Southron Sr.]

Dear John:

I think we are getting to the point where the "Preponderance of Evidence" is on my side. (1) We have "evidence" in the Sutherland & Wilson book that Colt did produce Short Rifles. (2) The sale of some of these same Short Rifles after the war by the Ordnance Department.

I respectfully disagree that the term "Repair" could or would include cutting a 3 bander back to a Short Rifle. Major surgery such as that would probably be included under the term "Altered."

Sincerely Yours,

Short Rifle Southron, Sr.,

[John Gross]

Dear John:

I think we are getting to the point where the "Preponderance of Evidence" is on my side. (1) We have "evidence" in the Sutherland & Wilson book that Colt did produce Short Rifles. (2) The sale of some of these same Short Rifles after the war by the Ordnance Department.

Apparently your opinion of “Preponderance of Evidence” is different than mine :)

William B. Edwards in Civil War Guns talks of these “Artillery” rifles on page 59. He supplies us with what may be the earliest reference to their existence, a book titled Our Rifles by Charles Sawyer (1922). Edwards calls Sawyer’s information about these Artillery rifles “gobbledygook” and that Sawyer “simply did not know what he was talking about.” Edwards calls these Artillery rifles “unauthorized models” and that “no contracts exist for them.”

Norman Flayderman, who has been a full time dealer in antique firearms for 60 years, tell us in his Guide to Antique American Firearms (pages 567, 568, and 570) that while these Short Artillery rifles “could“ have been made during the war he urges collectors “to be wary of such specimens [and that] There is no record of the manufacture or alteration to such size or length in otherwise detailed annual government reports.” Mr. Flayderman says in his opinion “such [Artillery] models are non-armory.”

Dr. James B. Whisker, who has written dozens of books and hundreds of magazine articles on muzzle loading guns, Civil War firearms, and the Springfield and Harper’s Ferry Armories, writes on page 6 of The U.S. Model 1861 Springfield Rifle-Musket; “There were no federal artillery muskets made either at Springfield or by private contractors during the war. Neither is there one hint in documentary evidence that any state contracted for artillery muskets.”

Since you began this thread about the 2-band SN&WTC For Massachusetts rifles, lets now look at George Moller’s book Massachusetts Military Shoulder Arms 1784-1877. Moller has a section on the SN&WTC rifles as well as other .58 caliber muzzleloaders, yet he makes ZERO mention of any 2-band specimens.

Now compare this to your “evidence” that the short [Artillery] rifles mentioned in Wilson’s book are the same ones in the 1870 government sales brochure. Note that Wilson (page 207) states the Colt Artillery models are “smoothbore”, yet in the sales brochure the 654 Short Colts are listed under “Muskets, RIFLE.” Since 495 of these Colts are noted as being “altered to smoothbore” it confirms that they were originally rifled, which conflicts with Wilson's information. Wasn’t it you who said that this sales brochure was a “legal government document” and that it had to be “accurate in all respects”? Therefore the sales brochure does not support Wilson, not that I felt it did anyway, but since you are making a big deal of this 1870 brochure it needs to be scrutinized.

In closing, it should be noted that if these Artillery models had not been grand fathered in during the 1950’s, they would not be allowed in competition because they can not meet the requirements of Rule 14.1 which requires evidence of their manufacture and purchase during the war.

John Gross

[John Holland]

Mr. Gross -

Well said, a doff of the cap to you, sir!

JDH

[RaiderANV]

OK,,,,now this debate begs the question.

Since there is NO proof the North ever made a "Short or Artillery" style musket and there is plenty of proof the South did during the war. Shouldn't this mean ONLY us Confederate units can use them in the N-SSA?!?!? 8)

[Joe Plakis, 9575V]

Pat such a strict adherence to the rule would be deadly! Why not take it one step further and just look at the fact that there are how many guns on the line with peep-sites that we never issued that way? Zouaves? 45-70 Bayonets? Rogers & Spencer? Center Fire Conversions?

Although I do remember reading about a unit from Indiana that captures some Richmond Rifles, and got rid of their smoothbores!

Although I would have no problem with your rule, Proud member of the Hampton Legion CSA Green

Bottom Line is that the proof if any is either lost, non-existent or just buried under a huge pile of dust!

[Southron Sr.]

Twenty years ago we could have had this same discussion regarding "Short" Richmond Rifles. Thanks to a very talented and dedicated Skirmisher, now we know the correct answer. All of the "literature" (Secondary Sources) on rifle production in the North during the war is contradictory at best. What is needed is more research of Primary Sources. I am of the opinion that two band rifles were manufactured during the war. Following the war, many more were made by cutting down three banders to two banders.

Perhaps we must agree to respectfully disagree.

With All of My Best Wishes & Regards

Sincerely Yours,

Southron, Sr.,

[Southron Sr.]

Give me credit! No one and I mean No One knew why production of the Georgia Armory Rifles in Milledgeville was stopped in 1863.

Even Murphy and Madaus, in their classic (and excellent) work of "Confederate Rifles & Muskets" could only speculate on WHY production of the rifles stopped in 1863.

I quote from page 254:

"The reason for termination of production is not known. Perhaps the price and the shortage of raw materials that affected production at other armories within the Confederacy in 1863 also stymied Georgia's efforts..."

Unfortunately, while I was doing my research, many pages from the Ordnance Letter Book in the Georgia Archives were cut out and stolen in the 1970's by a thief and consequently, all the information embodied in those pages (that covered almost all of 1863) is now probably lost forever.

I searched every other record in the archives until I came across an article in an 1863 edition of the Milledgeville, Georgia paper announcing that the production of arms was stopping at the Georgia Armory so the factory could be "re-tooled" to manufacture Cotton Cards! (Who would have guessed that!)

See, by 1863 Georgia had a huge, war time debt, and the Governor came up with a plan whereas Cotton Cards would be made in the armory and sold to the ladies of Georgia. That way, they could buy Cotton Cards from the state and use them in the production of cloth for clothing for the soldiers and their families and at the same time, sale of the Cotton Cards would help the state retire its debts.

Another factor came into play: In 1861 when plans were made to manufacture the Georgia Armory Rifles in Milledgeville, the state didn't know IF it were to be an "Independent Republic" or a state within a new nation.

By 1863, Georgia was well within the Confederacy and the Confederate Ordnance Department had taken over the responsibility of supplying Georgia troops with arms. Hence, there was no need for the state to manufacture arms.

My point is: until you start digging thru Primary Sources, YOU WILL NEVER KNOW WHAT YOU WILL RUN ACROSS. I feel that the full story of the Colt and the other Contractor's Short Rifles is yet to be discovered and told. The information contained in those Primary Sources will literally "trump" all the speculation contained in books (Secondary Sources) by the so-called experts.

With My Best Regards
Southron, Sr.,

[R Filbert]

Bravo! To the short arms- I have a couple of 1822 French muskets Id like to know a little more about-not exactly short arms but Springfield museum talks of imports to the war effort and lists both long and shortend versions of this arm-first being 57.9 in length and the second being 55.8- each having the flint to percusion forward spring locks. Would like to if possible find more info on these as I would like to use them in events- One being rifled the other being smooth- Each have tang mounted tombstone type rear sights. Unsure as to confederate conversion- but apeares the breaches were cut back as front sight locations are un- changed as they are mounted on the barrels as well as bayonete lugs and no evidence of a flash hole plugging? Can any one out there help with this! Any input would be greatly apprieciated. R Filbert Capt. Hazelwood Vol.

[Richard Hill]

Colt was the only contractor to be paid the full 20 bucks for each gun that passed inspection. All other contractors were paid on a sliding scale for lesser quality arms whose COSMETIC defects did not affect the serviceability of the arm. Thus: it's highly doubtful there were 2nd or 3rd class Colts bought by the Government.

[Richard Hill]

French Model 1822; they came in several barrel lengths, with 42.6" (Fusil de Infanterie) and 40.5" (Fusil de Voltigeur and brass-mounted Fusil de Marine) being the most common, and the lengths most likely imported, although the 36.5" Fusil de Dragon shouldn't be ruled out. To add to the mess, the 42.6" barrels were shortened to 40.5" when rifled. I highly doubt any of the still shorter versions (Mousqueton de Cavalerie, Mousqueton de Lancier, and Mousqueton de Gendarmerie) were imported. All were lumped together in Ordnance records under "French or Belgian, brass or bright", with triangular bayonets. They are legal to shoot in either Smoothbore or Musket matches.